Universal Basic Income = Slavery
![02242010_free-money.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://steemitimages.com/DQmV2XVzkj28H4Lb7Zaopp6cv1yL8jtqpUtDu9Lh8KYZtyf/02242010_free-money.jpg)
I have seen a lot of discussion lately in the media, online and otherwise about the prospect of universal basic income. The justification is usually along the lines of the generally failing world economy, as well as the rising tide of automation. Of course the prospect of having all or most of your basic needs catered for sounds like a great idea, but there is no such thing as a free lunch. At what cost will this universal basic income be?
First and foremost let us address the justifications for it. Sure the economy globally is struggling, and there are a few small pockets of societies still doing well, but the norm is massive amounts of debt and over leveraging, especially among the world economic powerhouses. The fact is even though I do believe a global economic collapse is inevitable, it will not last forever. Could it be really bad? Yes. Could it possibly last for decades? Yes. Do we have the potential to avoid an extended global depression with appropriate application of new technologies? Absolutely.
One of the main reasons in my opinion that the world economy is stalling is because disruptive technologies are being bought up, mothballed, or otherwise suppressed. The technology to create thorium nuclear reactors for example that are more efficient, produce less toxic waste, and most importantly will NOT melt down, unlike current systems, creating potentially extinction level events. This technology currently exists and simply lacks industrial and government support to get it into usable applications. Why would they do this? The answer is very simple, profits, or more specifically externalized cost.
Why would these companies who are highly subsidized by government running reactors far past their designed expiration dates all over the world, barely operating at a profit, if profitable at all, want to invest billions of dollars to build new safer systems when they can simply continue to use the existing time bombs known as nuclear reactors? After all, if one melts down, they don't pay the cost. You do. Sure they MIGHT get sued, but even if they do they simply declare bankruptcy and write off the loss. They are incorporated after all. In the end they will not be held responsible. This is what is otherwise known as externalized cost in corporate lingo.
This is just one single example of technology being suppressed in order to preserve profits. Another more overarching example would be what is known as “planned obsolescence”. This is the concept that companies will produce products designed to fail after a predetermined amount of time, forcing their user base to dispose of the unit and then buy another. This is the simple economics of preserving the customer base. If you sell a widget that lasts forever, once everyone buys one, you are out of business. As a result of this policy, better, more efficient, and longer lasting technologies are suppressed in order to preserve this treadmill of constant consumer behavior.
The problem with all of these types of policies is they are all very short sighted and focus on very specific components of the economy on an industry specific or company level. If technologies were allowed to be advanced, a new more robust economy focused around developing these new technologies would emerge, and as a result of the saved resources there would be MORE money for people to use on other products. Of course this plan falls victim to the tragedy of the commons, where overall people would benefit from such a system, but unfortunately individual actors would simply exploit this system rather than support it for the benefit of all. With some careful planning though, this system of exploitation too could be broken.
This brings us to the idea of automation increasingly removing jobs from humans. This idea is simply a red herring. As automation increases there grows demand for people to build, maintain, and design these machines. More jobs WILL be created in the wake of automation, except they will require increasing levels of education and training in most cases. Guess what that means. More jobs training these people. What the real issue is here is that employers CHOOSE not to employ humans, and automation is simply a blanket excuse used for dumping the workers of the world on their asses.
Machines don't need benefits, they don't complain, they don't need time off, or get sick. Before too long machines will be able to complete almost every task a human can, and it is inevitable automation will become an increasing part of the world economy. Again this is just another situation that lacks long term organizational structuring and planning for the common man, but history shows the common man is simply discarded by those in power when they are no longer needed. That is really what is happening here. The idea of universal basic income is just a carrot tempting the population into handing over control of their lives using the stick of unemployment.
Now we come to the topic at hand. The idea of a universal basic income. It sounds great right? Who wouldn't want free money and not have to work. Slow down... nothing good comes for free. Let us examine the costs of such a “utopia”. Not only is this plan not economically viable for reasons I will explain, it is designed to destroy the idea of any free representative republic, and take any freedom we may have left.
First and foremost, if you start handing out a currency to everyone for nothing, the laws of economics are very clear. That currency instantly becomes worth less. If it takes zero effort or sacrifice in order to obtain it, then at the end of the day what is it worth? Likely not very much. Additionally, there still exists the issues of scarcity. Even with a universal basic income, actual resources are still limited, and not everyone can get what they want. The result of this will mean that the prices of everything will instantly go up! This is inflation, and would be the direct result of any universal basic income system. Then once again, there grows a rift between the “haves” and the “have nots”, and we are back to square one. You can't fight the laws of economics with ideology. It simply doesn't work, and history shows this.
Finally let us approach the most important and devastating effect of a universal basic income. When people become dependent on the government issuing them currency to live on, and not on the merits of their own efforts, you have defacto Marxism/Communism. A lot of people throw those words around, but lets cover what this means directly in this context. The result of being dependent on the state is that first of all people will not fight for change within it for fear of being cut off from their primary source of income.
This is a very dangerous precedent that will grant the government a blank check to run roughshod over the human population. It creates an environment under which people are constantly under threat of starving and being left homeless simply for speaking out, or trying to make changes in the state of their governance. The key to any free society is independence. Dependence by definition is exclusive to freedom. To depend on a government or anyone else for your survival automatically puts you in a position of being subject to the control of those forces.
Furthermore, even if people are not 100% dependent on this income, it will still create an environment where people will support practically anything the government pushes as policy in order to preserve their income. This has already demonstrated to be the case in countries with large welfare entitlement programs. It builds a vicious destructive cycle of the government granting handouts, and politicians having a ready made voter base willing to go along with anything they say. Then the people vote for more handouts, and the politicians give it to them in order to preserve that voter base. At the end of the day, that money represents resources, and it has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is usually taxes, and taxes are collected at the point of a gun. If you do not pay taxes men with guns come find you and put you in a cage, or even worse kill you. Eventually this system will run out of other peoples money to steal. Then what happens? Forced labor. Loss of control of your life. There goes your freedom. You got your “free” money, and all you had to do was pay by becoming a slave. Alternatively the other option is depopulation... and that is not something that ends well for anyone but the most powerful. Wouldn't just working for that income and preserving your freedom be a better solution? Before you put your hand out and cheer for a universal basic income, ask yourself what that “free” lunch actually costs.
Please don't forget to up vote, follow, and resteem!
Read more at: http://www.truthbesold.com/index.php
Similar articles: https://steemit.com/freedom/@ericarthurblair/global-mind-virus
Image source: http://ptotrading.blogspot.se/2014/10/free-money-part-i-monday-night-freeroll.html
Very interesting post. I don't agree in its entirety and personally believe a basic income is mandatory for the future due to automation. However it does require the current systems among others capitilism (atleast this form of), politics and consumption to be reformed drasticly. On which I also agree that the fall of these systems is inevitable. In reality we could work as less as a few hours a week if the profits of our efforts were equally shared amongst the people. Combined with a less consuming based economy, like you said with commodities being made to break in due time. It would make more sense (on a benefit for all) to make products that are sustainable on the long term and produce less waste.
I by no means am insinuating that I think capitalism will fail, but we will have a global depression, much like we have had in the past on smaller scales. I don't think consumption itself is inherently evil, the problem is so much of it is going to waste rather than being used efficiently. Sharing equally is a nice concept, but the implementation of such a plan has historically shown itself to be flawed. More government regulation in almost all cases leads to even more problems. I do agree that we will most likely end up working less, which is fine, but in order to maintain the value of any currency as well as freedom, work or some form of sacrifice is necessary. I think what we need is a larger educated portion of the population all working in unison to implement these goals and demand these standards from those in power. It will not be easy, and it will be complicated, but it can be done. We are at a turning point in human history where we will either fail or adapt. I hope we can adapt. Thanks for reading and the thoughtful comment!
Thanks for checking out my blog :) We have a bit different views yet both concerned with where we are heading. I said efforts being equally shared, but what I ment was shared in fairness. The current capatilistic system exploits their workers by taking profit over someone else his labour. I agree that for some employees there is a certain risk managing a company and that it is fair getting a certain compensation. But we are at a point where giant companies take to much money from others work. Cool u seen the The Century of The Self Documentary!
I agree things are currently inequitable. The problem I see is there are not a lot of viable plans being put forth in order to bring this equality to fruition. Personally I would rather live under this broken system than end up in one where everyone is "equal" in poverty.
If robots will produce everything for free one day, who cares, we'd be happy and that would be awesome. The purpose of using machines is to increase production and decrease labor. We are made better off by more production, which leads to better and cheaper goods, rather than by work itself.
Good post and a concise argument. The principle of a universal livable wage is not one that I oppose in principle, the realist in me cannot deny the reality of what would happen..
Yes, much like most arguments for Socialism and Communism, in concept it sounds great and very equitable. In reality though the actual implementation inevitably results in a nightmare. Thank you for taking the time to read!
“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
― Milton Friedman
The debt is at the point were it will never be repaid...at present universal wage is paid to wall street in the form or bailout and QE, why not give it to everyone not just insiders. After all it is as easy as data entry. Currency should be free and circulated evenly not the trickle down effect they hope for.
When you play a game of monopoly you need the money to play, same with life...its just a game. Currency has no value anyhow, its just a confidence trick.
You are right when you say money is just printed and handed out to insiders. Currently though it does have value. Is it backed by anything? No. Is it fragile? Yes. The difference between handouts to everyone and handouts to insiders is the insiders keep that money in their systems at least preserving the value to an extent. I don't think they should have that privilege, but there is a vital difference. Additionally the effect this "free" money would have on keeping government in check as well as inflation would be disastrous. Did you actually read the post?
I would have to disagree with you amigo.
It is backed by the military and legal tender laws. I am not sure the elites keep it their system as you say, they definately keep it to themselves. But having said that have you seen whats happened to the price of high end realestate and art for example since the GFC that inflation infact hyper and they handle it ok...of course I read the article I just dont agree with it. We have out of control inflation at present because it is required by the banks to keep the illusions of interest payments, there are many ways that it can be controlled for example when a person passes their currency value can be removed from the system
So you say currency has no value but it is backed by military and legal tender laws...ok... getting quite into semantics here. I was describing the fact that it is fiat currency with no ECONOMIC backing, but feel free to argue a point we both agree on. Universal basic income is not a solution, putting the discussion of money aside, it still does not solve the issue of resource scarcity. You can print money all day, you can't just print resources. As a result prices will reflect that, and goods will simply inflate to the point that the free money is no longer effective at providing basic needs. Additionally as I described in detail, any time the population is dependent on the government for resources, it is a recipe for tyranny. I would love to hear your argument against those points.
Yes we are on the same page...we are here, right. And yes being on the government tit is no good. And yes I am a student of the laws of nature, understanding unlimited energy chasing finite resources and it's limitations.
I think we agree the answer is not an easy one.
But what is the answer, is the 20 trillion dollar question.
Thanks for the debate amigo, I enjoyed it
Here is a tongue in cheek article I did...
https://steemit.com/illuminati/@cheekybuggy/the-game-of-life-this-is-how-it-should-be
Nothing is free
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this @ericarthurblair, but I respectfully disagree with a few of your assumptions regarding the implementation of UBI.
That being said, I'm not convinced UBI's will solve everything. TBH, I'm more excited about combining DAO's with Employee Stock Option Plans than UBI.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. In response to your comments...
All of the most in demand goods would see the most inflationary pressure, at first it might not be a big deal but over time buying power would be depleted. Money can be printed, resources can not. Of course the speed of these developments are all dependent on the amount of income handed out under such a program. These are basic economic laws. Also, I am guessing those pilot programs are quite small and would not be representative of a nation the size of the USA with over 350 million people. Additionally, the welfare programs as they are also cause a lot of the issues described in my post, simply switching the way they are distributed would not fix any problems.
I have much less of an issue with decentralized entities engaging in such activities, but I still do think there are some costs associated with such a program that still remain.
Not having to strive to make ones life better has quantitatively shown to reduce the quality of life for people regardless of them being born wealthy or surviving on assistance programs. A large portion of a persons self value and image of self worth comes from their work and what they produce for the world around them. Furthermore for those in poverty this has the feedback effect of not creating the drive to achieve more leaving them in a state of dependence rather than striving for independence.
I always love a good economics discussion!
What makes you think this inflationary pressure isn't already partially caused by these issues? Granted the amount of money printed out of thin air dwarfs this amount, but it is not something that can really accurately be accounted for either way.
We seem to be in agreement.
That is kind of my point... I understand some people need help for a variety of reasons. For example I don't think assistance in the case of disability would be a bad thing. However it is that very striving to survive that is what really motivates people to make something better of themselves so they never have to go back to that again. As far as the Darwinian perspective, what would be the result of a complete safety net placed permanently around society? What would then happen if said society had problems and then couldn't fulfill those roles any longer? That could be a VERY bad result training and breeding the ability for survival out of society. As far as people being lazy & reproducing more... I disagree. Just take a hard look at the existing welfare system, you will see children are used as tokens for payouts. It actually incentivises reproduction and unemployment.
After getting UBI payments in Finland, citizens are turning down job offers and staying home lol
Great post! I know I'm late on this one, but I just stumbled across it. Socialism works!!!...until you run out of OTHER PEOPLE'S money. Scary direction things are going in the US. Now everyone wants "free education." When will people learn that there is no free lunch in life. Followed.
Thanks for reading.
Thank you so much for posing this. The world needs more negative UBI articles, i'm serious, these socialists are loons.
keep it up